Which all add more weight and limit manuverablity.
Of course it will. Your point being?
The role of a battleship is not to be quick and maneouverable, it's to smash enemy ships apart and blow shit up. For that role, bigger=better.
Movement! Naval ships move on basically a 2 dimensional plane, not counting subs. Starships do not, they are capable of banking back and forth and a whole host of other maneuvers that a naval vessel could not possible do.
Your point being? That doesn't affect my statement in any way. More space = more guns and generators.
Ergo, bigger = better.
Also, just because you have more space does not mean it can be used for everything and anything. A car may have a huge trunk, that does not mean you can install a larger engine.
As Seafort pointed out, however, it
can be used to further enhance your car's abilities in other respects.
It seems in the Trek Universe bigger=better was the prevailing theory for a very long time. Recently we have seen the development of pure warships and the trend has been that they are smaller. The Akira and Defiant classes are prime examples.
So? The GCS was a jack-of-all-trades. It was never designed as a pure battleship. It had a load of civillian equipment and facilities in it as well. It stands to reason that when all that stuff is removed, you could build a much smaller ship. Hence the smaller Defiant and Akira designs.
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
